The Best They've Got?

I'm looking over some of the RNC's oppo research, and I have to say it's pretty unimpressive. Here John Edwards stands condemned for criticizing some business practices that he's had some second-degree association with in his private sector life. Maybe it was through these activities that Edwards learned about the issues and became convinced of the need for public action. Robert Oppenheimer wasn't a hypocrite for having worked on the Manhattan Project and being opposed to nuclear weapons.

This on Obama is, if anything, even worse. He stands accused of having views on forward-looking Iraq strategy that aren't the same as his views in June 2006 and that are radically different from his views in September 2004. But everyone's opinions have shifted over the years -- the situation keeps changing; keeps, in fact, getting worse.

Comments

On the other hand, maybe they do have dirt, but they're saving the good stuff for when the actual Democratic Party candidate is chosen. Let the Democrats sling mud at each other, save the most damaging revelations for October 2008, no reason for them to help the candidate with the fewest weaknesses get through the primaries, etc.

Posted by Cyrus | July 17, 2007 8:52 AM

Along with the Oppenheimer example, try Earl Warren, a career prosecutor known for a callous attitude toward the rights of criminal suspect . . .

Posted by rea | July 17, 2007 9:14 AM

The quality of oppo research really says nothing about its meaningfulness. If there's anything the GOP has shown, it's that with its echo chamber in the media, it can turn anything into a scandal.

If, 4 years ago, someone had said that the GOP was going to take on John Kerry's war record, we'd have said "bring it on"...

Posted by 3pointshooter | July 17, 2007 9:47 AM

The most ridiculous thing about is that Bush, of course, opposed a troop surge from 2004 until January 07.

Posted by Sam | July 17, 2007 10:28 AM

"If there's anything the GOP has shown, it's that with its echo chamber in the media..."

My first laugh of the day. Thanks!

Posted by Fred | July 17, 2007 10:39 AM

We know that in the general election it will turn out that Edwards likes to dress up in women's cloths, or Clinton is a dominatrix, or whatever, and the Washington Post et al will mindlessly repeat these revelations from Limbaugh or whoever. We need to be ready to instantly push back as hard as we can against this stuff. I hate to say it, but if this type of thing does appear we should probably be ready to reveal that the Republican candidate likes to shag sheep. Unless the Republicans are way, way behind in the polls, an election in which only the Republicans use dishonest smears may be worse than one in which both sides do.
The swift boat thing was a classic Republican move - I saw a Rove quote to the effect that the voters already know the weaknesses of a candidate, so you attack their strengths.

Posted by peter | July 17, 2007 10:41 AM

The Republican oppo research may be poor, but the Democrats' evolving positions on the war may be a bigger issue than one might think, because the truth is a lot of the Democrats who supported the war or supported continuing in Iraq made fig leaf statements to cover the fact that they were afraid to look dovish.

That said, I doubt it's a big problem for Obama. Bigger problem for his rivals.

Posted by Dilan Esper | July 17, 2007 2:52 PM